Is this whole thing a Haskell Mk2? (8 Viewers)

[SkyBlueCRJ]

I didn't say every football ground owner, the same as every football club owner isn't a bad egg.

I am talking about Oxford because they are a club who have beef with the stadium owner also. Surely you can see that this is why I use them as an example? It's strange as you keep going on about Forest and Bolton.

I didn't say that every owner WOULD rinse, it's just it would give them more of an opportunity to knowing the EFL would be siding with them.

But you're basing your entire argument on the fact that because the Oxford ground owner is causing grief with their stadium that automatically means every other stadium owner could do the same. That's beyond circumstantial.

Not sure it's that strange Nick considering my initial point in response to HuckerbyDublinWhelan stating that people regularly misconstrued the 'fit and proper' test as a moral/ethical review of an owner - which I disagreed with as there are a host of examples of unfit owners currently in charge throughout the EFL.

What was strange was that you suddenly started banging on about something I wasn't even talking about in the first place.

 

---

[Nick]

But you're basing your entire argument on the fact that because the Oxford ground owner is causing grief with their stadium that automatically means every other stadium owner could do the same. That's beyond circumstantial.

Not sure it's that strange Nick considering my initial point in response to HuckerbyDublinWhelan stating that people regularly misconstrued the 'fit and proper' test as a moral/ethical review of an owner - which I disagreed with as there are a host of examples of unfit owners currently in charge throughout the EFL.

What was strange was that you suddenly started banging on about something I wasn't even talking about in the first place.

That's the point, if the EFL start siding with stadium owners and that clubs must play there then that is the situation that is opened up.

Here's the situation, there is 1 ground in a city. EFL say if club doesn't play at that ground they will fold the club. Ground Owner can then do whatever, charge whatever and act however they want because they know full well the club can't do anything about it? The club wouldn't be able to take them to court, the club wouldn't be able to move anywhere else.

Every other stadium owner could do the same if they wanted to because of the precedence set.

I was banging on about Oxford as the first example of a club having issues with the stadium owner, I obviously didn't mean every club has issues with landlords else I would have said that.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

But who are you proposing can set fair rent, how are they able to enforce it and what can they use to punish those that fall foul of it?

It isn't my job to propose who can set fair rent or who could enforce it, or the subsequent consequences thankfully, as I wouldn't know where to start. What I do know is that the principle of 'it can't be done because it might rock the boat' puts into question the worth and purpose of the EFL - especially if they can't act in the best interests of their members, regardless of the complexity of the issue.

 

[Liquid Gold]

It isn't my job to propose who can set fair rent or who could enforce it, or the subsequent consequences thankfully, as I wouldn't know where to start. What I do know is that the principle of 'it can't be done because it might rock the boat' puts into question the worth and purpose of the EFL - especially if they can't act in the best interests of their members, regardless of the complexity of the issue.

But I think most people know the EFL isn't fit for purpose. You seemed to be proposing some sort of governance policy and I was just asking for detail. If your point was that the EFL should be better and that's it then fair enough.

 

[Nick]

It isn't my job to propose who can set fair rent or who could enforce it, or the subsequent consequences thankfully, as I wouldn't know where to start. What I do know is that the principle of 'it can't be done because it might rock the boat' puts into question the worth and purpose of the EFL - especially if they can't act in the best interests of their members, regardless of the complexity of the issue.

Don't think it's about rocking the boat. It's about what they can and can't really get involved with without then opening themselves up to legal action and probably losing.

It's the problem with clubs, stadiums etc all being businesses. Ideally every club would be some sort of "community asset" with no "owner" as such so there aren't people trying to jump in for a quick buck. It would be great but how realistic when everything in football now is about money? Sky / Advertising / TV Rights / Naming Rights etc.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

That's the point, if the EFL start siding with stadium owners and that clubs must play there then that is the situation that is opened up.

Here's the situation, there is 1 ground in a city. EFL say if club doesn't play at that ground they will fold the club. Ground Owner can then do whatever, charge whatever and act however they want because they know full well the club can't do anything about it? The club wouldn't be able to take them to court, the club wouldn't be able to move anywhere else.

Every other stadium owner could do the same if they wanted to because of the precedence set.

I was banging on about Oxford as the first example of a club having issues with the stadium owner, I obviously didn't mean every club has issues with landlords else I would have said that.

And I agreed that could full well be a possibility, just not something that could be 100% guaranteed.

I've also agreed to that to. Of course they could but what would be their motive of doing so. A stadium owner sets the rent to ensure that he gets an ROI right? Why would they quadruple it knowing full well that club can't possibly pay said rent. That leaves them with a worthless asset they could be tied up with for years and completely illogical. It's almost like you're making out that because someone can do something that automatically means they're going to do it.

Hence why I said surely the EFL should vet third party stadium owners then? IF that stadium owner has plans to demolish the stadium in X amount of years to build housing for instance, why isn't it possible for that owner to be required to provide their tenant with due notice by the EFL? At least it would give the club owners time to prepare for a move OR build a new stadium. I'm not saying that would be the right approach to take but the EFL appear completely idol as clubs are continuing to get into this mess time and again without sufficient support.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

Don't think it's about rocking the boat. It's about what they can and can't really get involved with without then opening themselves up to legal action and probably losing.

It's the problem with clubs, stadiums etc all being businesses. Ideally every club would be some sort of "community asset" with no "owner" as such so there aren't people trying to jump in for a quick buck. It would be great but how realistic when everything in football now is about money? Sky / Advertising / TV Rights / Naming Rights etc.

Then what's their purpose then as I keep on reiterating? If they cannot act in the best interests of their members due to the fact that they have failed to keep up with the evolution of football then what is their purpose as a governing body?

 

[Nick]

And I agreed that could full well be a possibility, just not something that could be 100% guaranteed.

I've also agreed to that to. Of course they could but what would be their motive of doing so. A stadium owner sets the rent to ensure that he gets an ROI right? Why would they quadruple it knowing full well that club can't possibly pay said rent. That leaves them with a worthless asset they could be tied up with for years and completely illogical. It's almost like you're making out that because someone can do something that automatically means they're going to do it.

Hence why I said surely the EFL should vet third party stadium owners then? IF that stadium owner has plans to demolish the stadium in X amount of years to build housing for instance, why isn't it possible for that owner to be required to provide their tenant with due notice by the EFL? At least it would give the club owners time to prepare for a move OR build a new stadium. I'm not saying that would be the right approach to take but the EFL appear completely idol as clubs are continuing to get into this mess time and again without sufficient support.

I have seen us pay over a million a year for rent so it's an example that it would and could be done. The clubs would have no other option but to find the money if they wanted to exist.

The thing is, how can EFL vet stadium owners? They are just businesses with assets. The EFL has no say if a stadium owner wants to knock it down for houses.

I am not disagreeing with you about how they could prevent it, I am just saying why it's probably not viable.

 

[Liquid Gold]

And I agreed that could full well be a possibility, just not something that could be 100% guaranteed.

I've also agreed to that to. Of course they could but what would be their motive of doing so. A stadium owner sets the rent to ensure that he gets an ROI right? Why would they quadruple it knowing full well that club can't possibly pay said rent. That leaves them with a worthless asset they could be tied up with for years and completely illogical. It's almost like you're making out that because someone can do something that automatically means they're going to do it.

Hence why I said surely the EFL should vet third party stadium owners then? IF that stadium owner has plans to demolish the stadium in X amount of years to build housing for instance, why isn't it possible for that owner to be required to provide their tenant with due notice by the EFL? At least it would give the club owners time to prepare for a move OR build a new stadium. I'm not saying that would be the right approach to take but the EFL appear completely idol as clubs are continuing to get into this mess time and again without sufficient support.

What if the owner was a rival sporting institution who thought long term they'd be better off without a rival so short term profit wasn't their interest?
How could the EFL enforce notice to be given on a company that has nothing to do with them?

 

[Nick]

Then what's their purpose then as I keep on reiterating? If they cannot act in the best interests of their members due to the fact that they have failed to keep up with the evolution of football then what is their purpose as a governing body?

It's both them and the FA. With the Premier League as well everything has become about money.

With clubs, stadiums and everything else becoming businesses it means a lot of it then becomes a case of business law which aren't set by them. Obviously if people break business laws then they should step in (laundering etc).

 

[Liquid Gold]

Don't think it's about rocking the boat. It's about what they can and can't really get involved with without then opening themselves up to legal action and probably losing.

It's the problem with clubs, stadiums etc all being businesses. Ideally every club would be some sort of "community asset" with no "owner" as such so there aren't people trying to jump in for a quick buck. It would be great but how realistic when everything in football now is about money? Sky / Advertising / TV Rights / Naming Rights etc.

The community asset idea is an interesting one. I don;t think there is any way it's possible now but if a European super league ever happened then it would present an opportunity to change the game for those 'left behind'.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

I have seen us pay over a million a year for rent so it's an example that it would and could be done. The clubs would have no other option but to find the money if they wanted to exist.

The thing is, how can EFL vet stadium owners? They are just businesses with assets. The EFL has no say if a stadium owner wants to knock it down for houses.

I am not disagreeing with you about how they could prevent it, I am just saying why it's probably not viable.

It was set out as over £1M per year rent. It didn't automatically increase to that figure overnight did it?

I'm not saying whether the EFL get a say or not. Stadiums have been entwined with their respective football clubs for decades, the fact that there lacks sufficient ruling in place for stadium owners to state their intentions if purchasing that stadium is ridiculous as it causes issues like Oxford currently find themselves in.

It's probably not viable. But the lack of preparedness of the EFL with regards to keeping up with the evolution of football has in my eyes rendered them useless.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

It's both them and the FA. With the Premier League as well everything has become about money.

With clubs, stadiums and everything else becoming businesses it means a lot of it then becomes a case of business law which aren't set by them. Obviously if people break business laws then they should step in (laundering etc).

Exactly so hence where my argument stems from. Should the F.A. and EFL be granted (restricted) powers to be able to sufficiently govern their own sport as at the minute they're not doing a lot of governing, instead they're failing in pretty much every single department.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

What if the owner was a rival sporting institution who thought long term they'd be better off without a rival so short term profit wasn't their interest?
How could the EFL enforce notice to be given on a company that has nothing to do with them?

What sporting rival? Why isn't it their interest? Why do they not need short term profits? What would their plans be with the stadium instead?

I've reiterated that they will never be able to get their model 100% so you ask circumstantial questions until the cows come home but you'll still get the same answer.

 

[Nick]

What sporting rival? Why isn't it their interest? Why do they not need short term profits? What would their plans be with the stadium instead?

I've reiterated that they will never be able to get their model 100% so you ask circumstantial questions until the cows come home but you'll still get the same answer.

It's more pointing out why it's pretty much impossible for the EFL.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

It's more pointing out why it's pretty much impossible for the EFL.

As I reiterate: It's probably not viable. But the lack of preparedness of the EFL with regards to keeping up with the evolution of football has in my eyes rendered them useless.

 

[Grendel]

Then what's their purpose then as I keep on reiterating? If they cannot act in the best interests of their members due to the fact that they have failed to keep up with the evolution of football then what is their purpose as a governing body?

I can’t see how booting a club out of existence over a rent dispute is acting in the best interests of their members

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

But I think most people know the EFL isn't fit for purpose. You seemed to be proposing some sort of governance policy and I was just asking for detail. If your point was that the EFL should be better and that's it then fair enough.

You're right, I was proposing that the EFL should implement some sort of governance policy and I'll stand by my view. I've thrown some ideas around and I'll hold my hands up and admit they're probably not the answer but what I do know is that both the EFL and F.A. have failed to keep up with the evolution of football, and as a result have equally become outdated. In order to catch up with the clubs that they supposedly govern, change is needed so they can effectively solve disputes in the best interests of football clubs across the country. There's no sense in asking me for detail though as I'm neither an expert in football policy or legislation. It's simply an idea that you clearly disagree with, which is fine. But IMO since English football in its current state has become such a political, financial and social giant, what use is the current governing body of football in England when it's essentially powerless?

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

I can’t see how booting a club out of existence over a rent dispute is acting in the best interests of their members

They won't kick us out. Their threat is yet another example of how they will inevitably contradict themselves.

 

[Grendel]

They won't kick us out. Their threat is yet another example of how they will inevitably contradict themselves.

I also don’t see the contradiction if they did throw the club out any landlord in future can hold a club to ransom on the basis of “sign up or else”

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

I also don’t see the contradiction if they did throw the club out any landlord in future can hold a club to ransom on the basis of “sign up or else”

As I've agreed with the above posters that could be a possibility. But in lesser terms if that's the case then the EFL has lost its purpose and is essentially useless.

 

[Liquid Gold]

You're right, I was proposing that the EFL should implement some sort of governance policy and I'll stand by my view. I've thrown some ideas around and I'll hold my hands up and admit they're probably not the answer but what I do know is that both the EFL and F.A. have failed to keep up with the evolution of football, and as a result have equally become outdated. In order to catch up with the clubs that they supposedly govern, change is needed so they can effectively solve disputes in the best interests of football clubs across the country. There's no sense in asking me for detail though as I'm neither an expert in football policy or legislation. It's simply an idea that you clearly disagree with, which is fine. But IMO since English football in its current state has become such a political, financial and social giant, what use is the current governing body of football in England when it's essentially powerless?

I don't disagree, in fact I agree with you but I'm so pessimistic about it I was questioning to see if you had any ideas that sound feasible. The EFL/FA/EPL all need root and branch reform but I don't know what is possible.

 

[Captain Dart]

Who gets to define what a fair deal is though?

You can't have far reaching rules that are open to interpretation.

Which is why the fit and proper test is limited to involvement in multiple football clubs (potential conflict of interest), criminal convictions, bankruptcy, debt management, administrations, insolvency, disqualification as a Director and the like. These are clearly identifiable events or sanctions applied by the courts or other professional bodies. The future well being of the club in question isn't really the issue.

EFL Official Website - Appendix 3 - Owners' and Directors' Test

 

[chiefdave]

As I've agreed with the above posters that could be a possibility. But in lesser terms if that's the case then the EFL has lost its purpose and is essentially useless.

You keep saying the EDL should do more but what do you expect them to do? You're confusing running a business in a legal manner with running a football club in a manner which the fans approve of.

SISU, or whatever name you want to use, are a prime example here. They have not broken any laws, from a business perspective results could be said to have improved, they are taken legal action which they are entitled to against another company they feel has acted in a manner which damages their business. From that perspective what rules would you put in place that would have prevented the current situation?

You could insist the Coventry must play in Coventry rule is observed but follow that through to its conclusion. Either we pay Wasps any amount they ask for, even if its more than the original unaffordable rent, or the club gets thrown out of the league as there isn't another suitable stadium. How would that benefit us?

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

I don't disagree, in fact I agree with you but I'm so pessimistic about it I was questioning to see if you had any ideas that sound feasible. The EFL/FA/EPL all need root and branch reform but I don't know what is possible.

I really wish i did believe me but unfortunately I'm not well versed in football or business legislation and policy whatsoever. I think what we can all agree on is that clubs being effected by rogue stadium owners and dubious club owners is only going to get worse if there isn't some sort of reformation. I personally do think it's possible but it needs the right people behind it to enforce significant change. The only downside is that even if change was made, it would take years to enforce.

 

[chiefdave]

Which is why the fit and proper test is limited to involvement in multiple football clubs (potential conflict of interest), criminal convictions, bankruptcy, debt management, administrations, insolvency, disqualification as a Director and the like. These are clearly identifiable events or sanctions applied by the courts or other professional bodies. The future well being of the club in question isn't really the issue.

Remember when Pompey queried how poor the fit and proper persons test was, and remember at one point they were 'owned' by someone who quite possibly didn't exist, the authorities turned round and said it was basically a box ticking exercise as they couldn't do anything that was open to a legal challenge as they wouldn't be able to afford to defend it.

 

[Nick]

You keep saying the EDL should do more

The CET Journo unmasked.

Sky Blues Talk reacts

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

You keep saying the EDL should do more but what do you expect them to do? You're confusing running a business in a legal manner with running a football club in a manner which the fans approve of.

SISU, or whatever name you want to use, are a prime example here. They have not broken any laws, from a business perspective results could be said to have improved, they are taken legal action which they are entitled to against another company they feel has acted in a manner which damages their business. From that perspective what rules would you put in place that would have prevented the current situation?

You could insist the Coventry must play in Coventry rule is observed but follow that through to its conclusion. Either we pay Wasps any amount they ask for, even if its more than the original unaffordable rent, or the club gets thrown out of the league as there isn't another suitable stadium. How would that benefit us?

I'm not confusing anything. My point is what's the purpose of the EFL/FA as a governing body when they cannot act in the best interests of its members when it's under the thumb of a number of third parties. Football has developed into a financial, political and social giant in recent years and the footballing powers at be have all fallen behind with the times. So as a result, how can the EFL/F.A. manage its own members when they lacks the power to do so and when their own policy is completely outdated. I've admitted I haven't got a clue what can be done to solve the issue, but simply saying 'what do you expect the EFL to do' is ridiculous really as the definition of a governing body is having the authority to exercise governance over an organisation/s by making binding decisions and establishing laws. It literally doesn't have any authority at all apart from dishing out fines for criticising referees.

 

[Nick]

I'm not confusing anything. My point is what's the purpose of the EFL/FA as a governing body when they cannot act in the best interests of its members when it's under the thumb of a number of third parties. Football has developed into a financial, political and social giant in recent years and the footballing powers at be have all fallen behind with the times. So as a result, how can the EFL/F.A. manage its own members when they lacks the power to do so when their own policy is completely outdated. I've admitted I haven't got a clue what can be done to solve the issue, but simply saying 'what do you expect the EFL to do' is ridiculous really as the definition of a governing body is having the authority to exercise governance over an organisation/s by making binding decisions and establishing laws. It literally doesn't have any authority at all apart from dishing out fines for criticising referees.

Any governing body only really has limited powers doesn't it? They still have to rely on law etc.

 

[chiefdave]

The CET Journo unmasked.

Sky Blues Talk reacts

5 things we've learned about autocorrect.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

Any governing body only really has limited powers doesn't it? They still have to rely on law etc.

Obviously, otherwise that would constitute as some sort of dictatorship? But as a regulating authority they're completely ineffective.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

But you're basing your entire argument on the fact that because the Oxford ground owner is causing grief with their stadium that automatically means every other stadium owner could do the same. That's beyond circumstantial.

Not sure it's that strange Nick considering my initial point in response to HuckerbyDublinWhelan stating that people regularly misconstrued the 'fit and proper' test as a moral/ethical review of an owner - which I disagreed with as there are a host of examples of unfit owners currently in charge throughout the EFL.

What was strange was that you suddenly started banging on about something I wasn't even talking about in the first place.

My point was it’s very difficult to say who is unfit. You have to follow what all businesses would deem unfit.

If the Forest Owner is legally allowed to buy a company in this country by our laws, then the EFL Cannot call him unfit.

Yeah, he’s dodgy but that’s no different to say Phillip Green, but he’s allowed to be involved in another company should he wish to be

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Obviously, otherwise that would constitute as some sort of dictatorship? But as a regulating authority they're completely ineffective.

They’re not really a regulatory body though, they simply govern the running of a competition.

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

My point was it’s very difficult to say who is unfit. You have to follow what all businesses would deem unfit.

If the Forest Owner is legally allowed to buy a company in this country by our laws, then the EFL Cannot call him unfit.

Yeah, he’s dodgy but that’s no different to say Phillip Green, but he’s allowed to be involved in another company should he wish to be

Come off it. He was under investigation for probably THE worst sporting crime there is. Why couldn't the EFL at least suspend is purchase until trial was up? Again, just proves how outdated and black and white their legislation is.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Come off it. He was under investigation for probably THE worst sporting crime there is. Why couldn't the EFL at least suspend is purchase until trial was up? Again, just proves how outdated and black and white their legislation is.

Their legislation is based on whether UK laws permit him to be involved in business.

If they didn’t allow him, it’d open up a whole raft of legal challenges that the EFL are not capable of or have the appetite to be involved in.

And they can’t suspend a sale because they don’t own or have an interest in any football club